Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Button offers instant gratification for those plagued by airplane noise

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 214 posts

Re: Button offers instant gratification for those plagued by airplane noise

#161

Post by basejumping »

donkeyd wrote: post #150
signal11 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even before this, researchers have noticed that a few people generate a disproportionate number of noise complaints (both links from 2016): US: https://www.mercatus.org/publications/airport-noise-nimbyism UK: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37803205 (half of the around 25,000 complaints were made by 10 people) I wonder if these people are more susceptible to noise than others, or are simply more tolerant of / m…

In 2016, Schiphol airport got about 200k complaints, 150k of which were made by 35 people.[0] That's 11 a day, every day, assuming they all made the same number of complaints, which I doubt. [0]: https://airnoise.io/

It could well be 200 000 people if the process was as easy as pressing a button.

Re: Button offers instant gratification for those plagued by airplane noise

#162

Post by VBprogrammer »

Carpetsmoker wrote: post #80
cyberferret wrote: post #23

Just wondering if these devices are only issued to people who had houses in that area before the airport was built. IMO if you knowingly purchase a residence under a flight path, you lose any privilege of complaining about the noise. Modern aviation is already far quieter, and there are plenty of regulations in place to minimise the noise footprint (e.g. modern fanjet engines are far quieter than the older turbojets,…

> if you knowingly purchase a residence under a flight path, you lose any privilege of complaining about the noise. Honestly, this line really grinds my gears. Let me explain: First, people don't always know. Actually I think people frequently don't know. It's not like estate/rental agents are known for their outstanding honesty. Also remember that the loudness and frequency of air travel can change a lot . An airpla…

People will also completely disregard the positive changes which have taken place over the same time frame though.

Aircraft engines are substantially quieter (and less polluting) than they were 50 years ago. Aircraft have better performance and so climb away much faster.

I live on the south side of Heathrow (which has east-west orientated runways). We only get a fraction of the departures anyway but of those only the heaviest aircraft are generally noticeable. The shorthaul (737, A320 etc) aircraft are so high that the noise is negligible.

I'm sure 50 years ago this would have been much worse with heavily laden Tridents and VC10s spewing black smoke and clawing for every foot of altitude.

Re: Button offers instant gratification for those plagued by airplane noise

#163

Post by gambiting »

Carpetsmoker wrote: post #80
cyberferret wrote: post #23

Just wondering if these devices are only issued to people who had houses in that area before the airport was built. IMO if you knowingly purchase a residence under a flight path, you lose any privilege of complaining about the noise. Modern aviation is already far quieter, and there are plenty of regulations in place to minimise the noise footprint (e.g. modern fanjet engines are far quieter than the older turbojets,…

> if you knowingly purchase a residence under a flight path, you lose any privilege of complaining about the noise. Honestly, this line really grinds my gears. Let me explain: First, people don't always know. Actually I think people frequently don't know. It's not like estate/rental agents are known for their outstanding honesty. Also remember that the loudness and frequency of air travel can change a lot . An airpla…

I feel the same way when people say "why are you complaining about a pub nearby? didn't you know it was there when you moved in?". The point is - yes, the pub was already there, but so were the anti-noise laws in the area. And the laws say that noise should be kept to minimum after 11pm - the pub that was there for the last 100 years isn't magically exempt from the laws just because it was there for a long time. What's the point of even having anti-noise laws if they are selectively enforced? And worse, if people complaining are vilified because "you knew the pub was there when you moved". Yes, and the law was also there when someone moved.

Re: Button offers instant gratification for those plagued by airplane noise

#164

Post by gambiting »

chii wrote: post #117
happertiger wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true. If you live near an airport the disclosure is required by law if you buy a house in the are. However, it doesn’t preclude expansion and changes. If for example your airport moves from 12 hour a day to round-the-clock flights... nothing you can do. It’s a sticky wicket.

Cities should of course be building airports outside of the city!

And they do, but of course cities expand. What might have been an airport in the middle of nowhere 30 years ago, might be a city airport nowadays.

Re: Button offers instant gratification for those plagued by airplane noise

#165

Post by gambiting »

chii wrote: post #126
sargun wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t this somewhat defeat the purpose of the airport?

Not if they could put in good mass transit to and from the airport. Airports, like heavy industries, should be outside the city limits, away from populations.

By that logic, London should build their airport about 2 hours by train away from the city, because anything within <2h radius is still within highly populated zones.

Re: Button offers instant gratification for those plagued by airplane noise

#166

Post by lovemenot »

Could there ever be such a thing as domestic noise cancelation?

Presumably it would need precise location of ear-drums, such as by wearing a RF reflective stud on the ear lobe. And multiple time-of-flight receivers for triangulation.

I guess, if it were possible such a system would be much better when two or more people are not in the same room together.

Re: Button offers instant gratification for those plagued by airplane noise

#167

Post by sokoloff »

Carpetsmoker wrote: post #110
c54 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate your example especially since it’s something you couldn’t really have looked up beforehand. Imagine searching “raves til 5am in my area” But flight paths are a known known. Maps exist. Noise level maps exist. Airport locations, runway directions, departing and arriving flight paths (and altitudes!) all exist. Caveat emptor, you got a “good deal” on a house because it’s in a loud area. If you cared about…

> flight paths are a known known. Maps exist. Noise level maps exist. Airport locations, runway directions, departing and arriving flight paths (and altitudes!) all exist. I think it's not so unusual for people to just ... forget about this. Especially if they've never experienced it, or if the house isn't close to an airport at all. Moving can be a stressful experience; not infrequently moving has some sort of time…

I absolutely inspected both houses I’ve bought for a leaking roof prior to the inspection period closing and can’t imagine buying a house without doing so.

Re: Button offers instant gratification for those plagued by airplane noise

#168

Post by sokoloff »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #112
ams6110 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well not all the time. They can change, but approach and departure paths need to be approved by the FAA and published in official navigation charts. So they don't change on a whim.

Most people probably don't check official navigation charts, so they don't realize that just because they don't hear airplanes in a house when they visit it doesn't mean they won't later (like swapping runway direction depending on wind conditions). The FAA NextGen changes have also moved flight paths quite a bit over the last few years. My parents live somewhere where they wouldn't expect to have airplane noise (abo…

30 miles at 3000’ or below is an unusually and incredibly long low approach path for jets.

Most class B (largest 30 or so) airports only protect out to 20 miles and often only above 4000’ and none protect the airspace out to 30 miles. (Except DC which is protected post-9/11 not because of airplane needs.)

I don’t find small piston aircraft to be annoying (though perhaps constant beach banner towing or helo tours would be), but understand why people don’t like jet noise overhead. Fortunately jets climb quickly (for their own fuel efficiency needs) and while they have to be low for approaches, that’s generally well inside of 20 miles.

Re: Button offers instant gratification for those plagued by airplane noise

#169

Post by sokoloff »

sandworm101 wrote: post #58
jimnotgym wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand the whole community uses the airport? Presumably living close to it has it's own advantages? I don't have to suffer it so I am probably underplaying, but presumably it is a trade off? It is really annoying in my area how hard it is to get to the airport, whereas if I lived close by I could take a bus. Maybe this is just the trade off people make?

>> On the other hand the whole community uses the airport? Really? Most people cannot afford regular air travel. Most people fly very rarely, less than once a year and then only for extraordinary things. If you live under an airport what you see is people much richer than you flying around doing the stuff you can only dream of doing. It is much easier to make a complaint about a service that you do no regularly use.

Many people use overnight or other air freight services, either directly or indirectly.

Re: Button offers instant gratification for those plagued by airplane noise

#170

Post by sokoloff »

shaklee3 wrote: post #63
ilaksh wrote: post #18

In San Diego the airport is right downtown. Many people are pretty much gauranteed to be dealing with airplane noise regardless of the routes taken to land. Of course La Jolla is probably the most expensive area in San Diego. Should we route the airplanes around them? Lol. I mean you can't move the airports and most people can't move their houses so it feels like this is mostly a structural issue. And to me more dire…

You definitely can move the airport. San Diego has considered moving several times already.

I don’t think that considering and rejecting moving an airport is nearly as convincing an argument as actually moving a major airport.
Post reply on HN